E-Alert Case Updates

Fourth Circuit Affirms District Court Decision in Favor of Kroger Supermarket Arising From Elderly Woman’s Slip-and-Fall Accident

Margaret Aaron v. Kroger Limited Partnership I
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 12-1809 (November 13, 2012)
by Jhanelle Graham, Law Clerk
Semmes, Bowen & Semmes (www.semmes.com)

In Margaret Aaron v. Kroger Limited Partnership I, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Virginia district court’s judgment, entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Defendant, Kroger Limited Partnership (“Kroger”), and its order denying Plaintiff Margaret Aaron’s motion for a new trial. In a per curiam opinion, the appellate court held that the trial judge’s comments did not result in sufficient prejudice to warrant a new trial.

On June 3, 2010, Margaret Aaron, an 85-year old woman, fell at a Kroger store in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and sustained serious injuries. On June 9, 2010, Aaron’s counsel hand-delivered a letter to Kroger’s store manager requesting that Kroger preserve surveillance camera footage recorded on the day of the incident. On June 21, 2010, Aaron’s counsel delivered a similar evidence preservation request to the insurance adjuster. Video footage from Kroger’s store surveillance cameras is typically preserved for thirty (30) days, after which it is deleted to make space for a new recording. Kroger admitted that it received Aaron’s evidence preservation request at a time when the tape was still in existence, but allowed the videotape to be destroyed nonetheless.

At trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia acknowledged the power of federal courts to impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The district court found that Kroger’s conduct, even if not carried out in bad faith, must be characterized as intentional, willful, or deliberate, because: (1) Kroger was on notice of Plaintiff’s request that the evidence be preserved; and (2) Kroger knew or should have known that the video footage—regardless of whether it showed Aaron’s actual fall—might later prove relevant, such that preserving the tapes was clearly the more prudent course of action. Despite this acknowledgment, however, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Kroger, and Aaron moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FED. R. CIV. P. 59. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Aaron argued that the trial judge’s interventions into her case and comments to the jury compromised her right to a fair trial, and that the district court improperly instructed the jury.

The Fourth Circuit began by stating that it reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for new trial based on partiality or bias for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 237 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1272 (4th Cir. 1995)). A new trial will only be granted “if the resulting prejudice was so great that it denied any or all the appellants a fair, as distinguished from a perfect, trial.” United States v. Villarini, 238 F.3d 530, 536 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768, 776 (4th Cir. 1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

With respect to Aaron’s contention that the trial judge unfairly intervened into her case, the appellate court noted that “the judge has the right, and often an obligation, to interrupt the presentations of counsel in order to clarify misunderstandings or otherwise insure that the trial proceeds efficiently and fairly.” United States v. Cole, 491 F.2d 1276, 1278 (4th Cir. 1974) (citing United States v. Casiagnol, 420 F.2d 868, 879 (4th Cir. 1971)). The Fourth Circuit determined that the district court’s interventions into Aaron’s case were for the purpose of clarifying the evidence for the jury and ensuring that evidence was properly presented without undue delay. Further, the appellate court concluded that any prejudice created by the district court’s other comments to the jury was adequately cured. See United States v. Quercia, 289 U.S. 466, 472 (1933).

The Fourth Circuit then addressed Aaron’s contention that the district court’s jury instruction did not adequately distinguish between the unsafe condition causing the accident, and the hazard created by the unsafe condition. At trial, the district court had instructed the jury that it could find for the defense if the unsafe condition was “open and obvious.” The court of appeals reviewed the lower court’s decision to give those jury instructions, and concluded that the instructions did not misstate the law and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to distinguish between an allegedly unsafe condition and the hazard created by the condition. Rather, the appellate court found this proposed distinction to be more confusing than clarifying.

Finally, the appellate court directed its attention to Aaron’s argument that the district court erred by giving an insufficient instruction to the jury. Specifically, the jury had been instructed that it could find for the defense if the hazardous condition was “so slight that a reasonable person would not anticipate any danger from it.” At trial, Aaron did not object to the instruction, but raised it for the first time in her motion for a new trial. Consequently, the standard for appellate review of this decision was “plain error,” under United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941, 953 (4th Cir. 2010). Because Aaron cited to no legal authority to indicate that the language she desired was necessary to comply with Virginia law, the court of appeals held that the district court did not commit plain error by declining to modify its instruction in the manner sought by Aaron. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and order.